On Apr 7, 2008, at 00:20 , Alexander Limi wrote:
- Try not to be too clever with the Taste/Get and other links.
People actually scan for links that are similar from other projects,
and having to interpret/understand them is confusing.
+1
- The list of companies using Zope includes
On Apr 5, 2008, at 17:52 , Martin Aspeli wrote:
Then, we need a champion for each of the sub-projects. These are:
- Zope 3 and the Zope Libraries -- this is the most important one
in
the short term!
- Zope 2
- CMF
- ZODB
I'm volunteering for the CMF.
jens
On Mar 26, 2008, at 01:12 , Timothy Selivanow wrote:
I would rather have a package that upstream approves of and
participates
in, than blindly create it in a silo not caring. It never turns out
well in the long run with the latter.
You may be fighting windmills here. Previous attempts at
On Mar 10, 2008, at 17:57 , Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Tres Seaver wrote:
Gary Poster wrote:
Also, some variety of doctest would be nice. Even when a package is
not using doctests, I add new tests as doctest unless there's a
really
good reason not to.
Becuase they make for poor
On Feb 22, 2008, at 17:52 , Andreas Jung wrote:
Hi,
I (and some co-workers) encountered lately issues with traversal
when running scripts using zopectl run from the command line. The
lookup
code fore views apparently expects always the existence of a REQUEST.
What's the best approach to
On Nov 16, 2007, at 10:36 , Chris Withers wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
How do you go about mapping from old collector issue numbers to
new launchpad ticket numbers?
You let the www.zope.org redirect you.
Well, I'm not sure it does...
I'm looking at a changelog and it has a specific old
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6 Oct 2007, at 17:20, Andreas Jung wrote:
The distinction between Zope 2 and Zope 3 must disappear. We must
speak of Zope. Everything else is counterproductive when it comes
to promoting Zope. There is only one Zope developer community and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 4 Oct 2007, at 15:57, Jim Fulton wrote:
Any objections?
This would basically involve retiring the zope3-dev list and moving
zope3 developers to the zope-dev list.
Good idea. +1 from me. I'm not on zope3-dev but won't mind additional
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13 Aug 2007, at 08:04, Andreas Jung wrote:
to make it short: I propose to move the Zope 2 bugtracker to
Launchpad. Since the Zope 3 bugtracker works already with success
on LP
we should follow with the Zope 2 bugtracker. Objections?
One
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13 Aug 2007, at 09:11, Andreas Jung wrote:
Slow down... speaking for the CMF and PAS collectors:
I'm -0.5 on both since I actively use them and I have no
experience at
all with Launchpad. The other responsible people sit on the CMF
list so
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13 Aug 2007, at 11:11, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
One could also move the CMF bugtracker to LP at the same time.
Then only
the APE and the PAS trackers would remain. The PAS tracker is already
empty and the APE tracker is also pretty much
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13 Aug 2007, at 11:26, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 13 Aug 2007, at 11:11, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
One could also move the CMF bugtracker to LP at the same time.
Then only
the APE and the PAS trackers would remain
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 22 Apr 2007, at 19:28, Christopher Lozinski wrote:
On his personal home page http://zwiki.org/JimFulton Jim Fulton,
the Zope Pope writes:
Make ZWiki subclassable from ZClasses. This will make it a lot
easier to experiment and innovate.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12 Apr 2007, at 13:35, Miles wrote:
However, having logged this, the testrunner proceeded to run all my
tests correctly, and so the buildbot reported a pass. I expected
the testrunner to bomb out on encountering this error, but it
didn't -
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Subject: UNKNOWN : CMF-2.1 Zope-trunk Python-2.4.4 : Linux
From: CMF Unit Tests
Date: Sun Mar 11 22:42:15 EDT 2007
URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/cmf-tests/2007-March/004319.html
Subject: UNKNOWN : CMF-trunk Zope-trunk Python-2.4.4 : Linux
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 4 Feb 2007, at 12:47, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
I'm not quite sure it has to be part of Zope 2 as you install it.
Having
it in svn.zope.org would go a long, way, though, allowing us to use
svn:externals during development and potentially fix
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 4 Feb 2007, at 18:27, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Note that we have the same issue with ZopeVersionControl, which is
currently only in CVS. An import of that into subversion would
make a
lot of us very happy.
I think it has been
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2 Feb 2007, at 22:36, Dieter Maurer wrote:
* my code uses 2 blank indentation rather than the usual 4 blank
(to make it more readable and easier to maintain for me)
That can be dealt with by reformatting. Should not be hard to quickly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 14 Jan 2007, at 11:26, Andreas Jung wrote:
Running the ZPublisher tests (on the trunk) alone results in the
following error. However the tests works when running all
unittests. Bug or feature?
If a test runs one way and not another there's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 23 Dec 2006, at 14:23, Jim Fulton wrote:
zdaemon is an interesting case because it is s non-zope and
(mostly) non-python specific. I must say that it amazes me that there
isn't an established alternative out there.
When people start
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 23 Dec 2006, at 14:53, Jim Fulton wrote:
I don't think it ever caused anyone any headache apart from maybe
working
around different ways in which forking/daemonizing is handled on
some platforms (OS X comes to mind).
Any software we own is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13 Dec 2006, at 03:44, Rob Miller wrote:
is there a current maintainer or development process for
ZopeVersionControl? there's been a little bit of activity lately,
but it's still in CVS.
in any event, CMFEditions (a versioning system for
On 12 Oct 2006, at 09:32, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
I did a bit of checking: zope.org has a crazy number of DNS servers
and they are not all in sync. Particularly
seconly.rackspace.com (69.20.0.180) and cabana.palladion.com
(64.34.177.88) are not authorative for the zope.org domain and will
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12 Oct 2006, at 09:36, Justizin wrote:
That record comes from zoneedit.com, noone should be using those
servers for lookups AFAIK because zoneedit.com is not authoritative
for the NS records.
These are slaves which have not coordinated with me
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6 Oct 2006, at 18:55, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 6 Oct 2006, at 17:38, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
I noticed that ZopeVersionControl is still actively maintained in
CVS.
Would its maintainers mind moving it to subversion? That would make
it a lot
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6 Oct 2006, at 17:38, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
I noticed that ZopeVersionControl is still actively maintained in CVS.
Would its maintainers mind moving it to subversion? That would make
it a lot easier for us to include it in the Plone 3.0
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12 Sep 2006, at 13:19, Andreas Jung wrote:
Another point with this whole half-yr release cycle: we're going to
confuse
more and more professional users about which Zope version to use
for what.
I've heard from my major customer but also from
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12 Sep 2006, at 14:44, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Another point with this whole half-yr release cycle: we're going
to confuse
more and more professional users about which Zope version to use
for what.
I've heard from my major customer but also
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 30 Aug 2006, at 14:32, Christian Theune wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
Christian Theune wrote:
b) it's more convenient for developers
Why?
Early open port means: zopectl restart and reload in your browser
immediately without getting
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 28 Aug 2006, at 19:19, Andreas Jung wrote:
Some time ago the following patch was proposed to control the timing
for opening the socket ports upon startup:
http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/2005-November/025709.html
I propose to adapt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 28 Aug 2006, at 22:33, Dennis Allison wrote:
Have you compressed the Data.fs? There is an option in the control
panel
to do this. I can be run on a live machine, but you may not want
to do so
given the size of stuff. I'd do it on a quiet
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 17 Jul 2006, at 12:24, Andreas Jung wrote:
What about loading FS ZPT's and things like CMF's FSZPT?
Ask Tres or Jens :-)
CMFCore/FSPageTemplate does not do anything special, it defers to the
PageTemplate implementation.
jens
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 30 Jun 2006, at 14:30, Julien Anguenot wrote:
For maximum reliability I tend to forego the built-in log
reopening in
favor of using the logrotate utility in copytruncate mode. This
will
not require any log file reopening, logrotate will
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 22 Jun 2006, at 16:35, Tres Seaver wrote:
I believe that the extra flexibility which zpkg is intended to provide
(dependency-based subset distributions, primarily) would be better
served by moving Zope to use eggs, and that we should thus retire
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 19 Jun 2006, at 15:51, Chris Withers wrote:
Florent Guillaume wrote:
Hopefully the google archive trail will be enough for this issue...
When I look for bugs to fix I don't read the mailing list archives
for the past two years, I use the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 16 Jun 2006, at 10:28, Andreas Jung wrote:
My recommendation:
1 yr deprecation period as it is now
1 yr + X maintenance period for older branches.
+1
jens
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 14 Jun 2006, at 09:44, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 14. Juni 2006 07:32:42 +0100 Chris Withers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know the good reasoning behind the time-based releases, but have
they
really worked out?
Yes and No.
Yes: It's a must
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 3 Jun 2006, at 20:53, Florent Guillaume wrote:
On 3 Jun 2006, at 20:46, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 3 Jun 2006, at 18:49, Florent Guillaume wrote:
I didn't see the GenericSetup checkin creating that tag, could
you check that you're subscribed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 31 May 2006, at 14:55, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 09:49:49AM -0400, Chris McDonough wrote:
| I've done this (at least with FileStorage) and it's
| sllo. Might be OK for low-traffic sites, but better
| to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Just FYI, since the product seems mostly orphaned I just moved it
without asking anyone:
http://svn.zope.org/Products.QueueCatalog
jens
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 24 Apr 2006, at 10:59, Lennart Regebro wrote:
I find all these errors that Zope can't find a favicon.ico pretty
annoying. Can we put one into 2.10s root by default, or is that for
some reason a bad idea?
+1 from me. The circle-Z should make
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 24 Apr 2006, at 11:43, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Lennart Regebro wrote:
I find all these errors that Zope can't find a favicon.ico pretty
annoying. Can we put one into 2.10s root by default, or is that for
some reason a bad idea?
+1
On 24 Apr 2006, at 11:57, kit BLAKE wrote:
2006/4/24, Jens Vagelpohl [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yeah, that's nice. Does it work as a PNG, though? I was under the
impression (and thought the spec requires) that favicons must be
*.ico files.
A PNG favicon will work in the Mozilla family
that Basket should really just die in favor of something
going in to Zope 2 proper.
- C
On Apr 22, 2006, at 1:02 PM, Rocky Burt wrote:
Will do.
- Rocky
On Thu, 2006-20-04 at 21:12 +0100, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rocky, since this whole issue seems
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 23 Apr 2006, at 18:47, Rocky Burt wrote:
On Sun, 2006-23-04 at 19:30 +0200, Florent Guillaume wrote:
Cool. What's the status of it regarding integration directly into
Zope 2.10?
Well, pythonproducts patches regular Zope and also CMF. Five
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 23 Apr 2006, at 19:33, Rocky Burt wrote:
Great news regarding CMF 2.1 and Plone. Specifically all
pythonproducts
does for CMF is patch
CMFCore.TypesTool.TypesTool.listDefaultTypeInformation so that when it
looks up a product it doesn't simply
+0200, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 18 Apr 2006, at 08:30, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 17. April 2006 16:25:10 +0200 Jens Vagelpohl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wouldn't it make sense to migrate the complete Products hierarchy
from cvs.zope.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 18 Apr 2006, at 08:30, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 17. April 2006 16:25:10 +0200 Jens Vagelpohl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wouldn't it make sense to migrate the complete Products hierarchy
from cvs.zope.org to svn.zope.org?
- -1 on migrating
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 17 Apr 2006, at 14:15, Andreas Jung wrote:
Hi,
almost all big Zope projects have changed to Subversion
fortunately. Using
svn:externals is a nice way to build bundles and helps a lot
deploying software. However projects still have some
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 27 Mar 2006, at 11:55, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
Zope 2.8 ships/shipped with Five 1.0 which is very old and no longer
actively maintained. Most ppl doing currently development with Zope
2.8 are using Five 1.2. Should
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 24 Mar 2006, at 16:07, Jim Fulton wrote:
I think the XML export is a facility that is and should be advertized
as a legitimate escape hatch for data kept in Zope. People really
shouldn't feel afraid of putting data in Zope/ZODB as there
really
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 24 Mar 2006, at 16:12, Jim Fulton wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 24 Mar 2006, at 16:07, Jim Fulton wrote:
I think the XML export is a facility that is and should be
advertized
as a legitimate
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 24 Mar 2006, at 16:25, Jim Fulton wrote:
On the subject of deprecation, for the record, I think removing
ZClasses is a mistake. They have legitimate uses. They have major
flaws too. It would help if we would more clearly document their
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 24 Mar 2006, at 16:30, Jim Fulton wrote:
Interesting. I imagine that this is fixible in a somewhat
straightforward
way, although it is probably tied up with the general encoding
mess in Z2.
Yes, that's likely where the problem comes from.
I've set up a new mailing list that gets all checkins for the
zope.org CVS and Subversion repositories:
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/checkins
Does this list replace [EMAIL PROTECTED] as the default checkins list?
jens
___
Zope-Dev
On 13 Mar 2006, at 15:15, Andreas Jung wrote:
Due to some changes in my email configuration I would like to use
another email address for checkin notifications email other than the
current one. Is there a way to configure this on my own or do I
have to
beg before the svn admistrator?
The
On 18 Feb 2006, at 13:08, Stephan Richter wrote:
On Friday 17 February 2006 23:54, Jim Fulton wrote:
Only you and Philipp were excited about this. Not sure that
constitutes a ringing endorsement. Maybe others will chime in now.
I'm +10 too.
I'd like to see this happen before the end of
On 15 Feb 2006, at 15:30, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
* I plan on doing the migration some time during the PyCON
conference or
sprint (24 Feb through 2 Mar). There might be a period of 1 day or so
when commits to Five won't be possible. I'll inform everyone in
advance.
Perhaps Jens
Hi all,
Just got finished migrating the main repository on svn.zope.org away
from the old BDB backend to a FSFS backend. Some quick tests show me
that everything seems to be in order, including sending of commit
messages.
This means the repository is open for business again.
jens
On 23 Dec 2005, at 14:48, Jim Fulton wrote:
Jim, if you want to take a look at this new repository, it's
under / root/fakesvn.
I moved this to the normal repos area and changed the group to
the zopesvn, so that everyone with access to the old repository
should have access to this one. The
On 23 Dec 2005, at 14:57, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 23 Dec 2005, at 14:48, Jim Fulton wrote:
Jim, if you want to take a look at this new repository, it's
under / root/fakesvn.
I moved this to the normal repos area and changed the group to
the zopesvn, so that everyone with access
On 21 Dec 2005, at 16:15, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
With this upgrade in place I will do a new dry-run for the FSFS
backend migration tomorrow morning.
The test run ran through without any problems. Here's some stats:
- dumping the existing repository took 12 minutes and resulted in a
1.1 GB
that may be confounding our efforts to
run windows tests with buildbot.
Jim
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 19 Dec 2005, at 22:08, Jim Fulton wrote:
Sounds good. I'll announce that the repo will be down for
maintenance
on the 25th,
Just FYI, during a dry run this morning I hit an obvious snag
On 21 Dec 2005, at 16:12, Jim Fulton wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
I'm going to go ahead with this update in hopes of resolving some
windows client problems that may be confounding our efforts to
run windows tests with buildbot.
Done
Great. I can see http://svn.zope.org works just fine.
With
On 21 Dec 2005, at 18:47, Jim Fulton wrote:
I'll note, FWIW, that we don't do installs from Zope 3 checkouts.
I think it's worth asking whether this is an important requirement.
If it is, then we should make it work. Question is, is it worth
delaying the release? I don't know.
IMHO it is an
On 20 Dec 2005, at 08:51, Stefan H. Holek wrote:
On 18. Dez 2005, at 17:58, Tim Peters wrote:
Nobody should be installing from a checkout to begin with, right?
Ok, so that's probably where we disagree then ;-)
I almost exclusively work with checkouts, and I would think many
developers
On 19 Dec 2005, at 22:08, Jim Fulton wrote:
Sounds good. I'll announce that the repo will be down for maintenance
on the 25th,
Just FYI, during a dry run this morning I hit an obvious snag: The
subversion packages on svn.zope.org are so ancient that they cannot
create FSFS backends.
On 20 Dec 2005, at 11:57, Jim Fulton wrote:
Since I cannot do any test right now for loading the dumpfile into
a FSFS-based repository I suggest doing this package upgrade
beforehand. It only takes a few minutes. I cannot make any
guarantees that nothing will break, however. The only
On 20 Dec 2005, at 12:47, Alan Milligan wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jens,
I have the latest subversion-1.2.3-4 compiled for python2.3. I am
happy
to make them available to you if you wish.
Thanks for the help, Alan. I'm just going the route of least risk by
On 20 Dec 2005, at 19:47, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 20. Dezember 2005 14:27:18 -0500 Paul Winkler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
just to be clear, the stuff I'm talking about is ZMI user interface
docs, not programmer docs.
I'll raise the question again: what are the benefits of the HelpSys
On 19 Dec 2005, at 12:00, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 06:50:19AM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
| There is a drawback: Debugging becomes a lot harder and sometimes
| impossible because you get no or faulty line number information in
| tracebacks and when using pdb.
|
| That isn't
On 19 Dec 2005, at 20:02, Jim Fulton wrote:
Rocky Burt wrote:
Perhaps the backend should be switched from bdb to fsfs (native
subversion backend type) ? I know it does away with a lot of these,
issues.
Yup, when someone has time to do it. AFAIK, it will involve
dumping the repository and
On 19 Dec 2005, at 21:27, Jim Fulton wrote:
IMHO the process is straightforward and easy (except for the time
it will take),
That fact alone adds complication, as that down time needs to be
scheduled.
OK, well, the only complication is setting a date really. Someone
decides and
On 19 Dec 2005, at 21:37, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
BTW, thanks for volunteering for this! It will be great not to
fool with the Berkeley DB anymore. :)
Umh, more like force-volunteered now ;) Which is fine, but in
return I'd like someone else (maybe you?) to herd the cats and come
up
On 19 Dec 2005, at 21:44, Jim Fulton wrote:
Umh, more like force-volunteered now ;) Which is fine, but in
return I'd like someone else (maybe you?) to herd the cats and
come up with a time frame where this can be done, and
communicating it. I'll do everything on the technical side.
On 19 Dec 2005, at 22:08, Tim Peters wrote:
[Jim]
...
The whole repository is only about 800 megs. There are over 8 gigs
free. Are the dump file or the file-based repo much larger in
size the the Berkeley database?
FYI, if you don't want to read the code ;-), the book says an FSFS
On 19 Dec 2005, at 22:38, Sebastien Douche wrote:
On 12/19/05, Jens Vagelpohl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That %$£@ BerkeleyDB backend was geborken again. svnadmin recover
fixed it.
Hi Jens!
Does Zope server use svn server ? I had many problems with it (with
the need to recover it each time
On 18 Dec 2005, at 06:46, Alan Milligan wrote:
I'm reconsidering the way we RPM package byte-code compiled python,
and
although I suspect optimised python is a bit of an anacronysm, I
thought
I'd check with the list ;)
If one was to start Zope with python -O, then it would look for (and
On 18 Dec 2005, at 09:40, Stefan H. Holek wrote:
make install does currently not work on 2.9 branch and trunk. I
am told that this is because zpkg cannot do it. I am also told
that the tarball would support make install, just not the checkout.
I never use tarballs, so I don't know for
On 8 Dec 2005, at 22:57, Tim Peters wrote:
Can anyone advise me how to make this work under Zope 2.8.4?
I expect zeoup.py needs to be changed. I did a similar thing for
runzeo.py some time ago, and I bet the latter's
setup_default_logging() method could be mostly reused.
Just checked in a
On 9 Dec 2005, at 14:45, Florent Guillaume wrote:
So I propose another little change: have the error_log copy to
event.log be the default behaviour. Today the default is off.
+1
jens
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
Hi all,
In Zope 2.7 I'm using zeoup.py to check on a ZEO server. This script
can be run from anywhere as long as the PYTHONPATH is set correctly.
For Zope 2.8.4, the ZEO logging has been switched to use the logging
module. This leads to an error when running zeoup.py now:
CRITICAL -
On 8 Dec 2005, at 22:57, Tim Peters wrote:
To get unstuck quickly, try adding just this:
import logging
logging.basicConfig()
That always helps me in a pinch, but I never understood why (neither
why logging insists that you call _something_ before it will stop
annoying you, nor why
On 3 Dec 2005, at 15:57, Paul Winkler wrote:
One thought that occurs to me is to replace httplib.HTTPConnection
with
a mock object of some sort that allows easy verification of its input.
So we assume that httplib works, as a proper unit test should I think.
How to do this? One idea is to
On 2 Dec 2005, at 14:16, Chris Withers wrote:
Please no. Don't put anything at INFO. A conflict error is either
something normal that should be at level BLATHER or below, or an
ERROR that a sysadmin wants to see logged as such.
Not so. If I'm getting 1,000 resolved conflict errors a day,
1. Do you want these ConflictErrors retried logs to be at level:
INFO
2. In addition, please specify if you feel those retried
ConflictErrors should have their full traceback logged?
no traceback
3. Finally, please tell us if the ConflictErrors that *can't* be
retried (and are
On 30 Nov 2005, at 08:20, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 11/30/05, Jens Vagelpohl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 on a dedicated migration step. Might even be a chance for some
other cleanups.
So the process would be something like:
1. Make a FrankenDateTime that uses the pickles of the DateTime
On 29 Nov 2005, at 15:47, Tres Seaver wrote:
Yes, and for a perfect example of why (not related to DateTime,
just to
fix-in-place in general) prosecution calls zope.org.
Pros: Is it true that you harbor pickles from software which
pre-dates the original public release of the
On 29 Nov 2005, at 16:46, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 29. November 2005 17:36:51 +0100 Lennart Regebro
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A question that then pops up is: Do we want to force people to do a
migration to upgrade between say Zope 2.9 and Zope 2.10, just to
replace all the DateTime
On 28 Nov 2005, at 13:35, Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tarek Ziadé wrote:
Tarek Ziadé wrote:
Hello,
Benji recently changed test.py in Z3 in order to avoid collision
name
with the standard python 'test' module.
I bumped into the same problem running
On 27 Nov 2005, at 15:49, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
The real difference now is that I used to be able to create an empty
directory from which to run configure and make, but now it only works
when you sit inside the full source tree... So in order to do my
usual
pristine source tree
On 26 Nov 2005, at 11:43, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Hi,
I've recently been seeing weird DateTime test failures on all Zope 2
branches since 2.7 (see below). Any idea what I'm doing wrong? My
system
is OSX 10.3 with a self-compiled Python 2.4.1 (through
darwinports). My
system
On 26 Nov 2005, at 15:07, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
However, I am noticing that on the current Zope 2.9 branch, trying to
build the software fails completely. The configure script works
fine,
but the make step does not seem to do anything at all.
Yes it does. It compiles the C
On 24 Nov 2005, at 10:54, Florent Guillaume wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 24 November 2005 00:41, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
At least no one is expecting to make such big changes by
yourself. Being
stubborn and refusing to do further contributions, be they large
or
On 24 Nov 2005, at 00:09, Stephan Richter wrote:
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 18:49, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
People keep telling Zope2 developers that the inclusion of Zope3
doesn't mean you have to touch it, if you don't use it it is just
inert code that won't cause any change in your Zope2
On 18 Nov 2005, at 23:19, Alexander Limi wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 06:56:32 -0800, Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED]
jung.com wrote:
In general such changes should be made on the HEAD (for next 2.10
release).
OK. I was aiming for a quick sprint to get some small changes into
2.9 before
On 18 Nov 2005, at 09:27, Alexander Limi wrote:
I'd like to investigate the possibility of doing some UI
improvements to the Zope Management Interface. Is there someone
that is considered the godfather of the current Zope user interface
that I should coordinate with?
I don't think there
On 6 Nov 2005, at 03:41, Chris McDonough wrote:
configure
also allows you to install multiple times from a pristine source
directory without changing the source directory, which I (and others,
because they've told me they do) make use of.
I use that a lot myself.
-1 for removing it from me
On 4 Nov 2005, at 02:42, Thanh Hải, Hà wrote:
2005/11/3, Jens Vagelpohl [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
No it is not. And doing that opens up security risks. You need to
write a Python product or external method.
jens
Is there an example of how to implement it in external method or
python product
On 3 Nov 2005, at 10:41, Thanh Hải, Hà wrote:
Hello,
Does anyone know to manipulate files within a local filesystem
instead of ZODB? Is it possible to do that through a python script
or dtml method? Thanks.
No it is not. And doing that opens up security risks. You need to
write a
201 - 300 of 434 matches
Mail list logo
